Bombay High Court

VIJAYKUMAR GUNAJIRAO WATANEversusTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZP PARBHANI AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The petition is allowed, directing the petitioner to file a fresh application with the correct authority, after which the proposal shall be forwarded and the respondent must consider it within eight weeks.

Summary

Vijaykumar Gunajirao Watane filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Head Master (respondent No.3) to submit his proposal under a 2012 notice and the Chief Executive Officer, ZP Parbhani (respondent No.2) to consider it for retiral benefits. The respondent’s counsel argued that the petition was addressed to the wrong authority because the Head Master lacks power to forward the proposal to the Education Officer; the proper channel is the school management. The Court held that the petition could be resolved by directing the petitioner to re‑file his application to the correct authority (the management/Marathwada Marathi Bhamti Samaj), after which the proposal must be prepared and sent to respondent No.2, who must consider it within eight weeks. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition with these procedural directions. The order disposes of the petition on the basis that the petitioner must approach the appropriate authority first.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner addressed the notice to the correct authority for forwarding the proposal
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the respondent to submit the proposal
Whether the respondent is obligated to consider the proposal within a specified time

Subjects

Writ of Mandamus
Administrative Procedure
Retiral Benefits
Correct Authority
Procedural Compliance

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37473-DB




                                               (1)                      wp4871.18


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           964 WRIT PETITION NO. 4871 OF 2018

                              VIJAYKUMAR GUNAJIRAO WATANE
                                         VERSUS
                   THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZP PARBHANI AND OTHERS

           Mr. V.B. Anjanwatikar, Advocate for the petitioner.
           Mr. R.S. Wani, AGP for the respondent-State.
           Mr. S.S. Rathi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

                                           CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
                                                   JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.
                                           DATE  : 18.08.2026

           PC :-

           01.          This petition is filed praying for issuance of writ of mandamus

           directing respondent No.3 to submit his proposal as per notice dated

           01.08.2012 and to direct respondent No.2 to consider his proposal for

           seeking retiral benefits.



           02.          Learned Advocate Mr. Rathi appearing for respondent No.2 at

           the outset states that the petitioner had given notice to Head Maser of

           the School i.e. earlier respondent No.3 and not to the Management. The

           Head Master does not have Authority to forward the proposal to the

           Education Officer. The letter is thus addressed to wrong authority. If the

           petitioner makes request and sends proposal to the management, the
                                          (2)                     wp4871.18


management would be an appropriate authority to forward it to

respondent No.2 – Education Officer. He submits that the management is

ready to undertake the exercise.



03.                Considering the above, this Court finds that this petition can

be conveniently disposed of by asking the petitioner to submit fresh

application to respondent No.3 i.e. Marathwada Marathi Bhamti Samaj.

Respondent No. 3, thereafter, shall prepare the proposal and send it to

respondent No.2. It is for respondent No.2 to thereafter to consider the

proposal within eight weeks from the date of receipt, in accordance with

law.      The petitioner shall make such application within one week from

today.



04.                We thus allow this writ petition with aforesaid directions and

dispose off the same accordingly.



         [JITENDRA JAIN, J.]                    [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]


snk/2026/Aug26/wp4871.18

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…